One Pocket rule change

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
How do you think it would work if the game could be played with a short stack. Maybe using eleven or nine balls? A new way to break may be needed.
I like the any three fouls rule you mentioned but I hate the idea of a shot clock. I don't like the balls behind the line rule. That changes the game to much and for some players that's their bread and butter type of game.
I like your idea Frank, a rack of 11 balls would be interesting. It would speed up the game and possibly create more action, particularly after the break.:cool:

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
Billy...I'm a One Pocket purist...I don't like Lou's suggestions, time clocks, spotting balls in the kitchen, your suggestion :sorry or any others that I've heard - at all...that said, if there absolutely had to be a game-shortening rule....I've thought of one that I've told people about in the past..an extremely simple way of speeding up/shortening games that would have the least impact in changing the fundamental integrity of the game...and that rule change would be...

You would use the same normal 15 ball rack - but both players play to 7 instead of 8...the only way this rule would change the game, is that you wouldn't have any more 7 to 7 '1 ball-one-pocket-games' at the end of some games...but it could be more interesting this way, because in all of the hill-hill games, each player would have to defend against two other balls that are on the table, while trying to pocket their game-winning 7th ball...

This is the only game-shortening rule that I wouldn't hate seeing implemented, if I were playing in a tournament.

- Ghost
I'm a purist as well, doesn't your suggestion attack the integrity of the game, somewhat? I'm not saying that I don't like your idea, it's a very subtle change that would be different and exciting.

Dr. Bill
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,613
I watched all of the Accu-stats Make it Happen 1 Pocket where they had a shot clock every match and on every player. The game play was exciting. The shot selection seemed non-compromised by the clock (to me anyway). All the matches were spot on time for when they started.

I don't see any disadvantages to a clock. THese are pros we are talking about, not weak players like me:) They have seen every shot countless times before. Their shot selection process should be much quicker than amateurs. In addition, their shot execution process should not degrade if they were forced to execute under a shot clock.

The clock should be implemented for all matches and all players, as part of the tournament rule set. I think its only the lack of a reasonable and low cost method of doing this that is keeping it from happening. Someone could write a custom iPad app that is at the chairs of each pair of players. It could be programmed to beep when a player is at 10 seconds, etc. It could be modified if its logic is improved over time. It is a low cost solution (no physical person needed per match to start/stop a time clock). Hell, it could even be linked to an overhead scoring system that hangs on the lights that would include a time clock, game count, ball count, etc.

I really like the below implementation of a shot clock:
I'm not opposed to a shot clock. I play faster than many but I don't see shot clocks as a solution to this problem. My match with Bernie lasted 5 and half hours and though Bernie is not the fasted player out there he is not all that slow either. Style of play dictates the length of a match more than the cadence of the players.

I once watched a game played between Jimmy Fusco and Efren where they played to the final ball on the table. That one ball took two hours to pocket.
It was the finest display of one ball one pocket I've ever witnessed and a 45 second shot clock would not have changed a thing.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
To me the time clock is the the simplest thing. Players in Vegas I guess were warned now and then, but obviously many were totally permitted to take all the time they felt like for nearly every shot, and it was contagious -- i.e. when one slow player did it, their opponent did too, apparently to avoid being sharked by the others slow play. I don't see the need for that.

I think the best clock procedure if it is possible would be to have whatever number of seconds -- something like 60 seems reasonable -- but have an extra five minutes worth of extra time that automatically kicked if you took more than 60 seconds, until you used up your extra time, in which case the foul and lose of turn would start at 60 seconds. So over the course of a match, you could use the extra five minutes however or whenever you needed it, but once it was gone you were on a strict 60 second clock.

The One Pocket tournament in general went fine in terms of schedule -- aside from one power outage, and Corey's slow play in two of the three last matches.
I agree with your suggestion about using a 60 second shot clock, however, the 5 minute extra time part would be a little confusing. Wouldn't adding extensions serve the same purpose? How about adding like five 30 second extensions per game for each player?

Dr. Bill
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
I agree with your suggestion about using a 60 second shot clock, however, the 5 minute extra time part would be a little confusing. Wouldn't adding extensions serve the same purpose? How about adding like five 30 second extensions per game for each player?

Dr. Bill
Billy; You're a little "STINKER!"

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 

jrhendy

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
4,659
If the question is about time then the answer is obvious- use a time clock in tournament play. No one that i play with (outside of tournaments) plays slow. I would not play anyone who played slow. Life is short.

*** In chess, with adequate time, you can widdle away at the finite number of moves available until you reach a decision. That's why they introduced the time clock. I can't see pool players punching a time clock. But, abuse of time (Cory) is just not good for the game.

*** Outside of the time issue, i have a few comments: 1- Loosen the pockets. That will make it more of a movers game which i think is what the game is all about. 2- Give ball-in-hand on pocket scratches. 3- Get rid of the "flying cueball" shot to clear a pocket.
Using a time clock on someone like Corey is a double edged sword.

He can be very creative and wins and loses games with shots you never will see from anyone else.

I do not like the length of time it takes him sometimes, but he does figure out some great one pocket shots.
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Another idea would be 2, 3, or 4 no count.

It would make these endless struggles over one ball meaningless.
People would have to go for more shots of all kinds.

I also like the idea of a 9 ball rack. Just leave the spot open and break off the second ball.
Think I'll try this one.

Should have a set on Cyclop balls today to spend some time with and compare to the other balls I now have.

Bill S.
 
Last edited:

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
petie petie
Verified Member
Please, fellas. Get an erector set or something else to occupy all your free time. Apparently you have way too much of it. Accumulated fouls rule would necessitate more pennies on the rail to keep track of them. Shot clocks would only work in Tv table matches where you have a ref. Please, the rules are just fine the way they are. If you want to improve them, start by making the language clearer. Leave your hands off the game.
tylerdurden tylerdurden
Verified Member
I see a large, unspoken, underlying problem here. I am sure Lou means well of course, but even if you did speed one pocket it, it would never get anywhere meaningful (I will just leave out all the arguments as to why that is).

Once you come to realize the above is true, why not just leave one pocket the way it is, and the way we all love it? Why muck it up if we aren't going to get anywhere anyway.
I don't have a problem with the game the way it is, matter of fact I love it. However, I believe that the game is so intriguing that a rule change here or there wouldn't hurt the appeal of the game. Of course i'm not suggesting this on a permanent basis, just as something new. We can have different variations of playing one pocket like for instance..less balls...implementing a cube....ect. ect. I think it would be interesting.

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
Tom Wirth Tom Wirth
Verified Member

May I remind those who want to speed up the game that there is an easy way to do this without changing the rules. We all talked about this before. Introduce the cube into tournament play. Somewhere around 3 or 4 points for a match but a player must win by a margin of two or more. There would be nothing wrong with a sudden death game at 5 points all. Of course the number of points needed to win would have to be tweaked here and there but IMO this would speed up matches considerably and generate a great deal of excitement to an event while adding a new twist which players and spectators alike will find worthy of debating on just about every shot and situation. The introduction of the cube will not compromise the integrity of the game but it will force changes in strategy.

I would enjoy playing with the cube, and I agree it would speed up the game.

Dr. Bill
 

bstroud

Verified Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,426
Yet another idea.

Remove the 2 corner balls. 13 balls.

No corner ball going in on the break and no corner ball coming out to spoil the break.

Go to 7.

Bill S.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
Obviously any new rule(s) would only affect tournament play; and even then, probably only at the larger events.

I agree with Steve that any new rule to speed up play should only be instituted when a given match has really bogged down, which is fairly rare. Most guys play right along. It's only a few who drag it out.

Shot clocks used only on a select table or tables are inconsistent and unfair. It puts needless extra pressure on players who have unfortunately drawn that table or tables. A shot clock could be brought out for a dragging match. In that event, 60 seconds sounds reasonable. However few venues are going to buy shot clocks. I could see Greg investing in a number of them, but lesser venues undoubtedly would not.

Ghost has a novel idea re racing to seven balls out of a 15 ball rack. There would always be at least 3 balls to defend against. Pretty tricky...

Also, a 13 or 11 ball rack could be used, with races to 7 or 6 balls. Of course in those scenarios a drawn out 1 ball game could still present itself. Actually shorter ball counts with longer races might be a way to mix it up a little (e.g., 11 ball rack, ball counts to 6, races to 5)-- possibly resulting in fewer one-sided matches, and as a natural antidote to bad rolls.

Doc
That's what I like about you Art, you're easy to get along with.:D I thought Tom Wirth was the voice of reason. Just don't understand why when it comes to me, you're not so accommodating:frus

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
One hole is so similar to chess it makes sense to have shot clocks (40 sec?)and some form of extension of play per game.
I agree with both you and Steve on this one. A simple solution to speed up the game. However, can't we throw a little spice into the mix, somewhere? Just for a change, smart money says it will work out.:D

Dr. Bill
 

sappo

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,167
Hi Keith, No, you've got it right.
My sense of the use of the cube is that from game to game the cube will be offered quickly but rarely accepted. This will speed up games considerably and therefore matches.

Once a player has a significant lead in a game with a neutral table position the cube will be offered and in most cases will be declined. Games will fly by. Very few games will reach the stage where the score is close and the balls are up table an out of play. When that rare instance occurs when the cube is accepted, two or possibly four games will have been completed in the time it takes to play a single game! Can you imagine the flock of spectators converging on that table when they discover a single game now has the value of four games? :eek:

Tom
Tom, thanks for the quick response. I think the cube would change the game completely. There would not be many games where a players would come from behind. How many great games where a player is down 4 balls with all the balls uptable and he banks his way into a winner from a poor situation would never get to be seen? I would hate to be at a tounament where 2 great players are matched up and only get to see 1 game because the cube has been taken 2 or 3 times and a single game decides the set. I see stronger players putting immediate pressure on their weaker opponents by offerring the cube in the 2nd inning. I also see end of the "end game" as we know it today.

One pocket is the great game that it is because of its current rules. I say again if a player is playing SLOOW the tournament officials must take action with that specific player. Keith
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
Billy, I was at Vegas and I sweated many of the longer matches and I must say some of them were caused by SLOOOOW PLAY because specific players took to much time over almost every shot! However I feel there is nothing wrong with the rules as they currently exist. The problem is with a few players and to change the rules for everyone would amount to letting the tail wag the dog.

What is needed is stronger policing of slow play by the tournament director and his staff. They must determine which players are playing slow as opposed to which games have developed into an uptable game and as a result will take extra time to complete. Once the player who is "playing slow" is identified then a shot clock should be implimented. I think a 1 minute clock would be adequate with a couple of extensions of an additional 1 minute each game. Let me make one additional point, the shot clock should only be imposed on the "slow player" and not on his opponent.

Play by certain players was so slow that a 2 minute shot clock would have sped up the games. Keith
Keeping the game the way it is with a few tweaks here and there, in terms of speeding up play certainly wouldn't hurt the appeal or play of the game. I agree, good suggestions.

Dr. Bill
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,040
Have 4 stand up....leaning pad stools, one on each side of table. After ea shot, shooting player must semi stand/lean on the closest one while waiting. It would eliminate sitting down and getting up....could speed play up allot and give players more energy in the long run.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
I watched all of the Accu-stats Make it Happen 1 Pocket where they had a shot clock every match and on every player. The game play was exciting. The shot selection seemed non-compromised by the clock (to me anyway). All the matches were spot on time for when they started.

I don't see any disadvantages to a clock. THese are pros we are talking about, not weak players like me:) They have seen every shot countless times before. Their shot selection process should be much quicker than amateurs. In addition, their shot execution process should not degrade if they were forced to execute under a shot clock.

The clock should be implemented for all matches and all players, as part of the tournament rule set. I think its only the lack of a reasonable and low cost method of doing this that is keeping it from happening. Someone could write a custom iPad app that is at the chairs of each pair of players. It could be programmed to beep when a player is at 10 seconds, etc. It could be modified if its logic is improved over time. It is a low cost solution (no physical person needed per match to start/stop a time clock). Hell, it could even be linked to an overhead scoring system that hangs on the lights that would include a time clock, game count, ball count, etc.

I really like the below implementation of a shot clock:
You're correct, that tournament did run smoothly. Implementing a shot clock with a fair allotment of time, with a reasonable number of extensions should do the trick. As was evidenced in the "Make It Happen" tournament that Accu-Stats put on. However, it wouldn't hurt..( just for entertainment) if we were to change up the game a little, agree? Who knows, maybe this could be the beginning of ...one of pools greatest games.:D

Dr. Bill
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
I agree with the Ghost about going to a smaller number.
Could be 7 or even 6.

I felt my matches in Vegas went way too long. Chris is a very slow player. I am not so fast myself.

A time limit on the game could be used in tournaments. Whoever is leading at the limit would win the game. Would force the underdog to take some flyers.

Part of the problem is that that in the Modern game it has become necessary to get absolutely safe and leave no shot what so ever if you are not trying to make a ball. Didn't used to be that way. Slows the game way down.

Yet another solution (horrors) would be to go back to larger pockets. Would speed the game up a lot. End rail banks with speed would be back in fashion.

Wouldn't mind seeing a table with just two 5" pockets.

Another solution for tournaments is to play Break-n-Run one pocket.

Player A breaks and runs as many balls as he can. Then player B does the same. No safety play, only aggressive shots. Great for the spectators. Different game.

Bill S.
Bill, isn't that a little extreme? Your suggestion on "break and run" has taken away all the strategy in the game.:eek: Talking about attacking the integrity of the game:mad: I can't wait till The Ghost (one pocket purist) gets at ya for this, better be careful when taking that trip to Chicago.:heh
:focus

Dr. Bill
 
Last edited:

SactownTom

Moderator
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
813
It is in the early rounds that most of these SLOW players bog the brackets down.

We all know that SLOW play impacts a lot more than the two players in the long match.

I don't like messing with the tournament rules. I am not a purist, but I do believe that if it is not broke, don't fix it.

OnePocket.org rules do not address 'slow play' they leave it up to the 'general rules' category of the World Standardized Rules which state;

Under Section 6; FOULS

6.15 Slow Play
If the referee feels that a player is playing too slowly, he may advise that player to speed up his play. If the player does not speed up, the referee may impose a shot clock on that match that applies to both players. If the shooter exceeds the time limit specified for the tournament, a standard foul will be called and the incoming player is rewarded according to the rules applicable to the game being played. (Rule 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct may also apply.)

If the tournament officials will take the time to enforce the rules as they should be the slow players just might speed up their play.

Changing the game because of 'slow play' is not (IMO) a good enough reason. Increasing the penalty(s) for slow play effects the culprits not the game.

Enforce the rules, and make 'Slow Play' violation more severe.
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,367
Using a time clock on someone like Corey is a double edged sword.

He can be very creative and wins and loses games with shots you never will see from anyone else.

I do not like the length of time it takes him sometimes, but he does figure out some great one pocket shots.
Excellent points John. Corey is an exception, and you're right about his creativity, and about how long it takes him to figure things out. Matter of fact when we were up in N.J. at the "Make It Happen" one pocket tournament, Corey said to me that the shot clock hurt his game and that he shot shots that he wasn't happy with because the clock was running out on him. Coincidentally, that conversation took place directly after a match that he lost.:lol

Dr. Bill
 
Top